| 1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 24/06/2015 13:50, Alec Ten Harmsel wrote: |
| 3 |
>> P.P.S. Also, on 1% better performance: My professor for the compilers |
| 4 |
>> class I took used to (maybe still does) work at Google. Apparently |
| 5 |
>> Google sees a <1% increase in performance as *the best thing ever*, |
| 6 |
>> because it can save them a bunch of money in infrastructure and power. |
| 7 |
>> Apparently Google are the ultimate ricers. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Sounds like a case where Google already did the sensible optimizations |
| 10 |
> long long ago and are now hitting the diminishing returns from the long |
| 11 |
> tail. There are probably many of these and they all add up. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> One thing I've learned about Google's setup - there's nothing else like |
| 14 |
> it out there and they are truly unique. Almost nothing Google does to |
| 15 |
> optimize their setup is widely applicable to anything else :-) |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Take their power density. Last figures I have is they were running at 4x |
| 18 |
> the kW per square foot as anyone else with a brain. This terrifies |
| 19 |
> people who know about cooling. But, that's the setup and that's what |
| 20 |
> Google has to work with. Now suddenly, all those lots of little |
| 21 |
> improvements start to become a huge deal. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> So yes, ultimate ricers. Also the ultimates in |
| 24 |
> "riding-co-close-to-the-edge-you-fall-off-the-cliff" :-) |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Do we even have a clue how many puters Google has now? I read several |
| 29 |
years ago it was like 10,000 or so. No telling what they have now. o_O |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Dale |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
:-) :-) |
Archives