7 ms·

Not sure how many startups built their own servers anymore, this event seems like a response to the Greenpeace accusations of Facebook's environmental responsib

by yanw 16y ago

Not sure how many startups built their own servers anymore, this event seems like a response to the Greenpeace accusations of Facebook's environmental responsibility or wherever. Edit: I agree it's a good thing, it's just that hosting a press event rather than just making the announcement through a blog post suggests other motives as well.

nroman 16y ago
This is true. However, the services that startups use to host their servers (Amazon Web Services, Rackspace, etc.) could adopt these practices in new datacenters because the specs are open. This could lower costs for the startups that use these services, and be good for the environment. Seems like everyone wins.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- vl 16y ago
  Any large scale service already adopted such practices, may be not to the same degree. All large players buy custom hardware with specific tweaks to be more energy (read cost) efficient.
- toddmorey 16y ago
  "Graham Weston, the chairman of Rackspace, said that his company would use the new Open Compute servers in its own designs, and Zynga's chief technical officer said that his company would take a serious look at adding the new technology to its own cloud." http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2383257,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2383257,00.asp
flyt 16y ago
This isn't a response to Greenpeace, this is a response to the real costs that it takes to run compute infrastructure at the scale of Facebook, Amazon, Google, etc. If a datacenter can run at 1.07 PUE (as Facebook's new datacenter does), then it directly translates to massive power cost savings. Environmental efficiency just comes along with it.
- kragen 16y ago
  Okay, but why does it benefit Facebook's bottom line (and Google's!) to open-source that stuff? Wouldn't they be better off if their competitors had to pay those higher costs? It's not as if they have substantial computation-service providers they're buying from, or data-center-oriented companies they're selling to.
  - j3kuntz 16y ago
    They are hoping that the same philosophies which apply to open source software will benefit Facebook providing open source hardware. They mention a few goals they have during the talk. Mainly that they hope people will offer criticism and help them improve the technology. Facebook's core competency is not hardware so any improvements to the hardware sector directly benefit Facebook's bottom-line.
  - jawn 16y ago
    I too had this same thought. The only thing I could come up with is that, anyone implementing these at scale (fb's competitors) has already committed substantial dollar amounts to existing infrastructure. To leverage the minor improvements in design that will come of this, they would have to start by rolling out new facebook style racks/data centers. Whereas, for facebook any design improvements would be easier to implement on a larger scale. Either that or they are just do-gooders, which I highly doubt.
    - teaspoon 16y ago
      And if competitors do adopt FB's infrastructure, they'll essentially be training their engineers to work at Facebook. They'd better have counteroffer packages ready.
  - joshus 16y ago
    Facebook's core advantage is the social graph, not the infrastructure operation, which is Google's thing. Consequently, Facebook has tight grip on the access of its graph whereas Google keeps the secrets about its search algorithm and server setup. By open-source it, Facebook is not only getting good PR but also undercutting the competitor.
kellysutton 16y ago
blip.tv builds and maintains our own servers and data centers. We started before the Cloud though :)
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  Correction. You created the Cloud.
ChuckMcM 16y ago
The question comes up a lot when you're building very large scale applications. When does it make sense to have your own infrastructure vs using someone else's (like Amazon's). If you're running 'one' thing (like say a hadoop farm) and you can optimize out the things you don't need, there can be a pretty durable benefit in building your own machines. People like Rackable, HP, Dell, or IBM who sell servers need to build them able to do 'anything' you might want, in order to do that cost effectively they often put things on the mother board (lowest marginal cost) which are perhaps not useful in all cases. However, when you're using lots of machines you have to power and cool those unused sound chips and USB hub chips, and may firewire ports that aren't really all that useful to a web app. I talk about it as 'rack level' blades, basically motherboards on a cookie sheet that only have network and storage interfaces. Taking away a size constraint makes building them a lot easier (you don't need a custom backplane for example, you just plug cables in)
newmediaclay 16y ago
The only other motive it suggests is garnering as much publicity for their innovation/company as they can. Facebook is notorious for being able to magnify a small announcement into a big event and reap the dividends -- remember the announcement of a redesign via 60 minutes? If you can get media and influences to come pay attention to cool stuff you're doing, why wouldn't you?

by yanw 16y ago

nroman 16y ago

This is true. However, the services that startups use to host their servers (Amazon Web Services, Rackspace, etc.) could adopt these practices in new datacenters because the specs are open. This could lower costs for the startups that use these services, and be good for the environment. Seems like everyone wins.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
vl 16y ago
Any large scale service already adopted such practices, may be not to the same degree. All large players buy custom hardware with specific tweaks to be more energy (read cost) efficient.
toddmorey 16y ago
"Graham Weston, the chairman of Rackspace, said that his company would use the new Open Compute servers in its own designs, and Zynga's chief technical officer said that his company would take a serious look at adding the new technology to its own cloud." http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2383257,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2383257,00.asp

flyt 16y ago

This isn't a response to Greenpeace, this is a response to the real costs that it takes to run compute infrastructure at the scale of Facebook, Amazon, Google, etc. If a datacenter can run at 1.07 PUE (as Facebook's new datacenter does), then it directly translates to massive power cost savings. Environmental efficiency just comes along with it.

kragen 16y ago
Okay, but why does it benefit Facebook's bottom line (and Google's!) to open-source that stuff? Wouldn't they be better off if their competitors had to pay those higher costs? It's not as if they have substantial computation-service providers they're buying from, or data-center-oriented companies they're selling to.
- j3kuntz 16y ago
  They are hoping that the same philosophies which apply to open source software will benefit Facebook providing open source hardware. They mention a few goals they have during the talk. Mainly that they hope people will offer criticism and help them improve the technology. Facebook's core competency is not hardware so any improvements to the hardware sector directly benefit Facebook's bottom-line.
- jawn 16y ago
  I too had this same thought. The only thing I could come up with is that, anyone implementing these at scale (fb's competitors) has already committed substantial dollar amounts to existing infrastructure. To leverage the minor improvements in design that will come of this, they would have to start by rolling out new facebook style racks/data centers. Whereas, for facebook any design improvements would be easier to implement on a larger scale. Either that or they are just do-gooders, which I highly doubt.
  - teaspoon 16y ago
    And if competitors do adopt FB's infrastructure, they'll essentially be training their engineers to work at Facebook. They'd better have counteroffer packages ready.
- joshus 16y ago
  Facebook's core advantage is the social graph, not the infrastructure operation, which is Google's thing. Consequently, Facebook has tight grip on the access of its graph whereas Google keeps the secrets about its search algorithm and server setup. By open-source it, Facebook is not only getting good PR but also undercutting the competitor.

kellysutton 16y ago

blip.tv builds and maintains our own servers and data centers. We started before the Cloud though :)

chopsueyar 16y ago
Correction. You created the Cloud.

ChuckMcM 16y ago

The question comes up a lot when you're building very large scale applications. When does it make sense to have your own infrastructure vs using someone else's (like Amazon's). If you're running 'one' thing (like say a hadoop farm) and you can optimize out the things you don't need, there can be a pretty durable benefit in building your own machines. People like Rackable, HP, Dell, or IBM who sell servers need to build them able to do 'anything' you might want, in order to do that cost effectively they often put things on the mother board (lowest marginal cost) which are perhaps not useful in all cases. However, when you're using lots of machines you have to power and cool those unused sound chips and USB hub chips, and may firewire ports that aren't really all that useful to a web app. I talk about it as 'rack level' blades, basically motherboards on a cookie sheet that only have network and storage interfaces. Taking away a size constraint makes building them a lot easier (you don't need a custom backplane for example, you just plug cables in)

newmediaclay 16y ago

The only other motive it suggests is garnering as much publicity for their innovation/company as they can. Facebook is notorious for being able to magnify a small announcement into a big event and reap the dividends -- remember the announcement of a redesign via 60 minutes? If you can get media and influences to come pay attention to cool stuff you're doing, why wouldn't you?