Google, Microsoft Escalate Data Center Battle 190
miller60 writes "The race by Microsoft and Google to build next-generation data centers is intensifying. On Thursday Microsoft announced a $550 million San Antonio project, only to have Google confirm plans for a $600 million site in North Carolina. It appears Google may just be getting started, as it is apparently planning two more enormous data centers in South Carolina, which may cost another $950 million. These 'Death Star' data centers are emerging as a key assets in the competitive struggle between Microsoft and Google, which have both scaled up their spending (as previously discussed on Slashdot). Some pundits, like PBS' Robert X. Cringley, say the scope and cost of these projects reflect the immense scale of Google's ambitions."
Hmm... It's Slashdot so... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm... It's Slashdot so... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm... It's Slashdot so... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm... It's Slashdot so... (Score:5, Funny)
No they both need those data centers (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
How much more efficient Google is by being able to use Linux, *BSD, *NIX and even Windows when it's needed? While Microsoft is bounded to it's own operating system.
Mind you that I'm not saying here that Windows can't be competitive, just that it isn't the right tool for every job, and Unix tend to outperform it at the server scenario.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That's just to run the video subsystem
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As long as it doesn't violate GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As long as it doesn't violate GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't know about you, but maybe the "unwashed" part may have something to do with it.
--
BMO
Re:As long as it doesn't violate GPL (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Its just not possible for them to release their internal source.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why not? I mean, I haven't heard a reason why they could not release a modified version of the kernel. Do you have any links on this?
Or, could you speculate on the reason(s) why this is the case instead of blandly stating it as fact?
Re:As long as it doesn't violate GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's against the spirit, then why was private code-branching specifically allowed by the GPL? Isn't freedom to run your code as you see fit a big part of freedom?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:As long as it doesn't violate GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
It's obvious that you've not grokked GPL itself.
The GPL covers distribution. No distribution = do whatever you want with the code.
You forget that Google loses the power of peer review for their code, but that's the tradeoff. Having a lot of really smart people in their employ probably makes up for it. So they've got their own branch. They have to do their own heavy lifting.
If you remove the freedom to work on Linux in-house, then you've removed one of the freedoms _allowed_ by the GPL.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
That used to be the idea with copyright as well. It's almost scary how many nowadays think it's a license defining how you can use what you bought.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No.
What part of "The Google Search Appliance is based on the same software that is used in Google's datacenters." do you not understand?
IOW, it's a legally cleaned up version of what they use internally. It's not the same.
Thank you for playing.
--
BMO
Re:As long as it doesn't violate GPL (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think it's a violation just as long as they keep it in house. Which means they also have to support it in house. Not everyone is willing to keep on retainer kernel developers for their employee desktop computers.
Google is changing the way people do business on the internet. They are also going to change the shape of the internet. Much of this very likely will follow any of a number of historical industrial patterns which eventually lead to severe regulations and a severe restriction of who is allowed to post information on the internet and what kind of information you are allowed to receive on the internet. It is not necessarily true that the regulators will dictate the limits of content but simply reinforce the idea of limiting content.
Examine the history of Television and Radio to see how they followed this path. I don't think anyone really considers the internet that much different. At least they can get it to fit the model. With the exception of the social webs like facebook, youtube, and myspace, most of the internet consists of content delivery and a large portion of that content (by some) is seen not as written words but media in forms of video/audio material. And with the highly publicized problems that these social networks are having (where everyone is a pedophile or worse) it's ripe for all the sheeple to cry out that they need the guberment to protect them from their neighbors. And "bang!". Just like that you have a completely "owned" environment where no one can actually do anything, everything costs money, and the sheeple are happy again.
Re:As long as it doesn't violate GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
The question of the "spirit" of FOSS is profound though. Underneath the license, there are two related principles, a negative one (do not interfere with the rights of an object code recipient) and a positive one (share knowledge). The question that arises is this: should these principles apply to users of services built around the object code? There doesn't seem to be a fundamental reason why such rights are granted to people who receive the object as object code, but not people who are equally if not more affected.
I think the answer may hinge on this: of the two principles, non-interference and sharing, the sharing principle is less strong.
Users of a service created by a vendor like Google are not supposed to have the power to change that service. Otherwise it would be impossible to offer a service before its users redefined it into the oblivion of inconsistency. Google gets to define the service and control it. Not allowing users to change the service (via the source code it runs on) is not interference, because the service would not exist if any user could change the source code on a whim (Wikipedia perhaps being a related counterexample).
But if the sharing principle were equally strong Google would be obligated to share the source code of any changes it made with its users, even if they were not allowed to alter the services they depend on.
This argument leads to the conclusion that sharing must be less of a fundamental value to FOSS than it is "instrumental" to the value of non-inteference. If you control source code to object code somebody else depends on, you can interfere in their freedoms (e.g. proprietary database licenses that forbid publishing benchmarks).
This may make some sense. In engineering, the most important piece of knoweldge is usually that something can be done. In this case, the changes Google has made are probably (1) stripping unneeded features out and (2) tweaks that are highly Google specific. The first is something that any reasonably competent engineer can do, the second is probably not critical to any would be competitors amongst Google's users.
Control over source code is reaching, via the laws of copyrights and contracts, into the affairs of object code recipients. Non-sharing of know-how is something every business does to some degree; it is more difficult to draw the line between vicious and innocuous secretiveness than it is between vicious and innocuous interference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google contributions: FACTS (Score:2)
Rather than just assuming that because there isn't a "Google Linux for Datacenters" distribution, that they don't contribute back to the kernel developers.
Google is a founding member of OSDL (where Linus works), so I would guess they do contribute. See here [google.com] for a list of free software organizations where Google is formally involved.
Non-local computing (Score:5, Insightful)
Early signs of this beyond the obvious google applications that require web access, are aggressive attempts by Microsoft to "activate" everything online. You are going to increasingly need network connections to run standard applications.
I don't like that myself, since it hurts reliability and autonomy in computing. From a marketing perspective, there are huge benefits to centralized computing of course. Take gmail for instance, which lets google mine your private communications to gain insight into products and services which might interest you.
Re:Non-local computing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Non-local computing (Score:5, Insightful)
A hacker can break into one person's home computer and get their info, or they can break into a google server and have 2 million people.
I'd be more worried about a rogue government or future government deciding
they want to mine that data to find out who all the "terrorists" are.
Oh, wait
Rich.
Re:Non-local computing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Non-local computing (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't like that myself, since it hurts reliability and autonomy in computing.
If all else is equal, a centralized approach is less reliable than a distributed approach.
But seldom is all else equal.
A distributed approach to software and information systems often has catastrophic failure as part of the mix. A well-designed central approach, with built-in redundancy and a qualified backup scheme can usually outperform the poorly administered "edge" systems run by end users.
And, in this space, the economies of scale rapidly factor in, making a better experience cheaper, as well. Sorry you don't trust the hosting providers, but it isn't always that way...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
True, but a) you have no idea of knowing just how resilient their systems are, or how reliable their backup scheme is... until it fails, of course; b) online apps require an internet connection; and c) trust.
The need for an internet link to the central site is still a pretty significant failure point, especially if we're talking "end user
Re: (Score:2)
A well-designed central approach helps zip if your local ISP's upstream fiber has been dug up. A centralized approach is probably more reliable retention-wise, but access-wise it's far worse. There's loads of POF along the way from yo
Re:Non-local computing (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry, you can trust skynet. What could go wrong?
Data security nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
Forget that, I'd rather have my own mail server at home, not to mention my own apps at home. I don't even trust ISP's.
This "offsite word processing" crap is for chumps - anyone with sensitive data would be utter idiots to go there.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The collaboration features are also pretty cool...although for cool collaboration features check out SubEthaEdit [codingmonkeys.de]
Re: (Score:2)
Non-Paranoid computing (Score:2, Interesting)
ASP [wikipedia.org]
"Early signs of this beyond the obvious google applications that require web access, are aggressive attempts by Microsoft to "activate" everything online. You are going to increasingly need network connections to run standard applications."
Piracy [wikipedia.org]
"I don't like that myself, since it hurts reliability and autonomy in computing. "
Time-sha [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who actually needs to work like that? Most people go to work, sit at the same desk and use the same keyboard on the same PC every day. You have your chair at the right height, a mouse that fits your hand, a cushion that fits your back, your calendar on the wall, your paper files in a cabinet. For the small percentage of people who do wande
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For those people who only ever work/access e-mail fr
Re: (Score:2)
Fine. Email is one thing; I've accessed my email in Pokhara, Nepal. But I have no desire or need to set up a virtual workstation away from my office. If I actually did want to work on the move, I'd use a laptop, or notebook PC. But as I said, there's more to a working environment than a computer screen. Google can't make me a cup of coffee, sharpen my pencil, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I wonder where the government would stand on this.
On one hand, having all computing dependent on a few centralized data servers, makes them great terrorist targets. It would be in the best inte
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno. A hallowed economy sounds pretty good to me...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/venerable [reference.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the aim is to run Word equivalent on their server. They are probably eyeing applications that use multi-terabyte data on thousands of nodes to run ( e.g. a google search which is only possible with large data centers.) Keyword matching and ranking for web-search is probably only the tip of the iceberg on what could be done
Re: (Score:2)
I'm of two minds about the autonomy concern, but after 27 years of working with personal computers, I'm convinced that Google offers storage and retrieval capabilities that are more reliable than anything I could put together at home. More reliable, in fact, than any system a small business would be willing to budget for.
As to autonomy, I'm
Good in the short term (Score:4, Insightful)
However, longer term things may not be so appealing. Both companies have a nasty habit of collecting and storing as much personal data as possible (Google in particular), and both are pushing towards 'lock out' where you are prevented from using your own computer without their participation via connection to their networks. And of course the software industry has a history of producing only one winner in the end, meaning the benefits of this kind of head-to-head competition are unlikely to last...
Re:Good in the short term (Score:5, Interesting)
From my point of view, there'll be no single winner, but technology will revert once again, and the term 'computer' will mean what it meant in the 60s and the 70s. Provided enough bandwidth, stability and solutions like roof-top server rooms - Google [or Microsoft, although it's hard for me to believe it] has good chances to build such a network with powerful data centers and relatively dumb clients. Again, the task is not easy, and there is 1001 reasons why, but defying laws of physics isn't among them, and the Almighty Buck will surely help solve all of them sooner or later.
Why? Google's desperately trying to diversify its income sources, why don't you suppose that they'll offer hosting services because they plan to?
Re: (Score:3)
How does Google stop me from using my computer without their network?
and i quote (Score:5, Funny)
That's no zune...
Death Star independent contractors (Score:5, Funny)
All these independent contractors in each Death Star data center are getting involved in a war between Microsoft and Google- a war they had nothing to do with.
Speaking as an independent contractor myself (Score:3, Funny)
They just laid his ass off and shut down the entire outfit, but they still have to run the air conditioning because of a few third party servers l
Re:Speaking as an independent contractor myself (Score:5, Funny)
This needs a rewrite:
I'm an engineer, and I can tell you that an engineer's politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs. Just three months ago I was offered a job working at one of the big information companies data centers, in a vast facility. And then I learned how screwed up the company's plans were. The money was right, but the risk was too big. So I passed the job onto a friend of mine.
While writing a C# script for some part of thier web portal my friend was hit by a flying chair, it was a leathal blow, and he died instantly. I'm still employed because I recognized the risks involved in working in a Death Star. Anyone working in a Death Star data center for Google or Microsoft is aware of the risks involved in that war. Whatever happens to them is their own fault.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only a matter of time before some asshole jedi comes along and blows you away along with millions of innocent contract workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Go watch the movie again. He didn't miss the reference, he responded entirely appropriately.
WHOOOSH (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I know how they could find out fast:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=installing+a
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
With this many Death Stars around, the Rebellion doesn't stand a chance! **evil cackle**
Time to invest (Score:5, Insightful)
It looks like it's time to invest in IBM, Red Hat, Maxtor, and Intel. They may sell a lot of hardware and software.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you invest based on 3rd party development you need to invest into something that is currently valued low and will grow by a large factor based on the development, taking any relevant risk in the process.
It is time to invest into one of the nearly bankrupt transatlantic line companies. Google quite obviously has decided to limit their expansion in EU and build on the other side of the fat cable instead. Not a bad idea after all
Best politicians money can buy (Score:2)
Whatever gave you the idea that Euro policies are less difficult to buy? Atleast in the USA you buy politicians with campaign contributions and with disclosure laws you know how much they cost. In EU with all that murky old boy networks, and well entrenched political system, you dont really have to buy the politicians but bureucrats. And they come much cheaper than the politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
In the EU it is much more difficult to buy a large policy package especially if it comes along with tax breaks like those Carolinas currently hand out to anything with "high tech" in the name (Dell was the first to notice this one).
In addition to this Google (and MSFT for that matter) needs a place which combines a number of factors. It needs to be an economical backwater so it can buy land cheaply and have cheap labour
Re: (Score:2)
As for the rest, hard drives and microprocessors will certainly be needed - but as the cost of microprocessors is just a small part of the cost of the computers, and Intel is having vast production capacities, the added microprocessors are just a drop in a ocean. More so for hard drives, and I suppose just the same
Re: (Score:2)
Ecological nightmare (Score:4, Interesting)
Since electricity is a continent-wide commodity you can guess whose electric bill will be going up as they buy up all the watts just so they can store every little detail about your life.
Check your numbers (Score:2)
Ecological dream (Score:3, Insightful)
A PC will run way below peak capacity most of the time, and will typically be optimized for all kinds of things, like peak processing power per dollar initial investment. Running cost will rarely be a factor.
In the best case, the data centers will mean orders of magnitude decrease in power consumption for computing, if people start investing in PC's just powerful enough to run a web browser, and deleg
ObStarWars (Score:5, Funny)
These 'Death Star' data centers are emerging as a key assets...
Better make sure to protect the plans for that data center...one well placed shot in an exhaust vent could take out the whole thing. Not much harder then hitting a womp rat with a T-16, from what I hear...
Death Stars (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Telling name (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So, Google's completely safe from harm then? This is the only example of 'security through obscurity' that would actually work.
I don't beleive in server side applicatons yet (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe (Score:2, Interesting)
Nope. (Score:2, Interesting)
maybe it's time for MS to stop trying to compete with everyone and just focus on what they do well: OS'es and Office Suites
Forget it, as well as most of the other things you describe in you post. Microsoft couldn't do this even if they wanted; they've got shareholders to please. The office software market is oversaturated for a long time now, and only through artificial means is MS still able to extract money from it. They're not merely going to stop growing if they do not expand to new territories - they'll instantly drown, plain and stupid. It's very hard for the old dog to learn new tricks. They cannot possibly accommodate
Spash! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've figured it out... (Score:2)
We're hosed. Don't buy any real-estate on Crete.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Great trilogy. Waste a few afternoons and those of you 40ish return to your childhoods for a while.
Colossus (1966)
The Fall of Colossus (1974)
Colossus and the Crab (1977)
South Carolina FTW (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone else worry about hurricanes? (Score:2)
Then again, data centers in CA and other west coast locations have the risk of earthquake destruction. Difference is earthquakes seem to occur once every few years to couple of centuries. Hurricanes (especially with global warming) seem to happen annually, with a major one causing east coast
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. If you look at prior hurricane destruction and damage, nearly always only the first few miles inland see major damage. People 20 miles north of New Orleans were fine after Katrina. Unless Google decides they HAVE to build on the shoreline with a view of the Atlantic, they are 99.999% as safe from hurricaines as Dorothy in Kansas.
Incentives to Build (Score:5, Interesting)
San Antonio (Microsoft) [mysanantonio.com]: No property taxes for 10 years. A $5.2 mil grant from the CPS Energy economic development fund to pay for the electrical infrastructure to build the site.
South Carolina (Google) [valleywag.com]: No property taxes for 30 years (essentially, for the life of the site). The 150-acre site was granted to them, and the state government has granted about $5 mil [yahoo.com], too. Google has been incentivized to the tune of about $100 million.
Some of the structural construction will undoubtedly be done by locals. The technical work of building the data center (installing servers, wiring everything together) is probably outside of a local construction company's expertise. The real bulk of all those hundreds of millions of dollars goes to purchasing the actual computer equipment, none of which is local. A handful of the most-well-educated locals could be employees, but most employees will be transplanted. In less than 10 years, both sites will probably be obsolete (or, worse, axed as excess capacity). As the article on Google's site notes, the obscene incentives equate to "a $500,000 sweetener for each of the 200 jobs Google will create."
For half a million dollars, I'm sure the local economy could get more bang for its buck than just one Google employee. What exactly are these local governments getting in return for their obsequiousness and prostration?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It also isn't just structural construction. The land development (roads, site work, drainage, etc.), will be done locally and cost a pretty penny. This is my field and I live in SA, s
Jobs! (Score:2)
By Google building these things out in the sticks I might actually be able to work someplace cool but not have to pay crazy cost of living $$$$.
Now if I could only get up the confidence to endure the google "hazing" interview process.
Google is way ahead already (Score:2)
From what I can tell, Google is already way ahead of MS on datacenters. To me, Google has already planned out its whole strategy on data centers. Microsoft seems to be in the "me too" phase right now and haven't thought about the whole picture beyond of building a data center.
First of all, how is Microsoft going to connect its data center(s)? Google quietly bought obscene amounts of dark fiber capacity. There was rampant speculation as to why Google was doing that and now we know. I haven't heard MS d
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Predictions (Score:2)
I disagree, it's now becoming common in prediction articles (particularly the year in review ones) on scoring last years predictions.
I prefer them, even when they're mostly wrong because of the insight into how we were thinking last year against what actually happened.
Re: (Score:2)
um, could it be... Power?
oh - wait... you're right. There's always Kringle Power and Light.
Re: (Score:2)
Bandwidth, construction costs and manpower are more of the limiting factors.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And increase the cost of bandwidth, electricity, and man-power.
Re: (Score:2)