6 ms·

Google opens up on seven years of its data center history

77 points by aphtab 14y ago

doublerebel 14y ago
From the linked post [1], 1/4 the power to run pumps instead of fans is a major difference! Was curious if using local water sources would have any environmental impact from the heat or flow, and found an article talking about the first seawater-cooled center, from only May 2011 [2]. Google apparently creates a 30-year thermal model of the effect on the environment. I hope other corporations take their consideration and transparency as an example. [1] http://www.greenm3.com/gdcblog/2012/11/13/google-adopts-water-as-key-to-save-energy-in-data-centers-pu.html http://www.greenm3.com/gdcblog/2012/11/13/google-adopts-wate... [2] http://gigaom.com/cleantech/google-to-switch-on-worlds-first-seawater-cooled-data-center-this-fall/ http://gigaom.com/cleantech/google-to-switch-on-worlds-first...
dm8 14y ago
They innovated on three frontiers - search engine algorithm, intent based advertising, and data center/infrastructure technology. A startup has to be really good at one thing to succeed. Google was really good at 3 three things right from it's early days.
- marshallp 14y ago
  As much as I like google, I doubt they're as good as that. Their search and advertising is essentially a monopoly because they have such a data lead over anyone else. That's why facebook freaks them out because they know how having more data is the secret sauce. Their data center innovations don't seem all that incredibly innovative. If they had robots whirring around I'd be much more impressed.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - Gustomaximus 14y ago
    > If they had robots whirring around I'd be much more impressed. They kinda do. See their self driving cars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car
    - marshallp 14y ago
      I mean in their data center. Also, I'd be more impressed if they actually got the self-driving cars out to the world. It's been 5 years now. Google has a problem executing, they're lulled by their one success.
      - HCIdivision17 14y ago
        I'm impressed because people have been trying to nail this problem for decades. Try convincing people that a few million automated half-ton canisters of metal going 60 miles an hour are safe. An early success will win investors or make a nice press release, but developing a rigorous, safe product of that complexity and risk is a long slog. It's got to be so well understood it's boring - then it's ready for massive public use.
      - ghshephard 14y ago
        If you live in the Bay Area you see the automated cars driving Google Employees to work all the time. I used to get an SMS any time somebody saw one (they are very distinctive) - but not as often, because people are starting to get more used to them. Though, they are still pretty cool to run across.
      - nostrademons 14y ago
        One success being Search, AdSense, GMail, Maps, Analytics, Chrome, or Android?
        marshallp 14y ago
        Success as in what earns their profits.
        14y ago
rdl 14y ago
I wonder how much global warming gets prevented just through everyone adopting these practices for datacenters (either directly or by switching to cloud providers with an economic incentive to do so). Maybe a carbon tax wouldn't be so unreasonable, if it shifts more innovation like this. There's probably a "Google of Cement Production", agriculture (arguably this is Monsanto or ADM or Cargill, as much as they are reviled over IP, they are quite efficient), etc.
- ars 14y ago
  There already is an energy tax. You have to pay for energy. A carbon tax on top of that wouldn't effect efficiency.
  - fiesycal 14y ago
    The argument is that the cost of extracting the energy and transforming it into a usable source does not match the cost it does to the environment once that energy is used. That's what the carbon tax is for. It's for the carbon (pollutants) you produce not for the energy you use. Hence why it's called a carbon tax and not an energy tax.
    - rdl 14y ago
      Exactly. By capturing externalities correctly you'd encourage use of inconveniently located less-polluting energy sources in some cases, in preference to easily transported (or conveniently located) more polluting fuels. (or, my favorite, easily transported, non polluting nuclear...)
    - ars 14y ago
      It's not so simple. Until the EROI of other fuels improves dramatically a carbon dioxide tax is just going to make every fuel more expensive, since non-carbon fuels need carbon fuels as input. Once the EROI goes up this isn't a problem. But until it does a carbon dioxide tax is pointless - it just makes everything more expensive. And once the EROI does go up people will switch to those energy sources without prompting (they will simply be cheaper), so again a carbon dioxide tax does nothing.
aphtab 14y ago
Might wanna read this one too: http://gigaom.com/cleantech/google-backs-iowa-wind-farm-has-put-close-to-1b-into-clean-power/ http://gigaom.com/cleantech/google-backs-iowa-wind-farm-has-...

77 points by aphtab 14y ago

From the linked post [1], 1/4 the power to run pumps instead of fans is a major difference! Was curious if using local water sources would have any environmental impact from the heat or flow, and found an article talking about the first seawater-cooled center, from only May 2011 [2]. Google apparently creates a 30-year thermal model of the effect on the environment. I hope other corporations take their consideration and transparency as an example. [1] http://www.greenm3.com/gdcblog/2012/11/13/google-adopts-water-as-key-to-save-energy-in-data-centers-pu.html http://www.greenm3.com/gdcblog/2012/11/13/google-adopts-wate... [2] http://gigaom.com/cleantech/google-to-switch-on-worlds-first-seawater-cooled-data-center-this-fall/ http://gigaom.com/cleantech/google-to-switch-on-worlds-first...

dm8 14y ago

They innovated on three frontiers - search engine algorithm, intent based advertising, and data center/infrastructure technology. A startup has to be really good at one thing to succeed. Google was really good at 3 three things right from it's early days.

marshallp 14y ago
As much as I like google, I doubt they're as good as that. Their search and advertising is essentially a monopoly because they have such a data lead over anyone else. That's why facebook freaks them out because they know how having more data is the secret sauce. Their data center innovations don't seem all that incredibly innovative. If they had robots whirring around I'd be much more impressed.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- Gustomaximus 14y ago
  > If they had robots whirring around I'd be much more impressed. They kinda do. See their self driving cars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car
  - marshallp 14y ago
    I mean in their data center. Also, I'd be more impressed if they actually got the self-driving cars out to the world. It's been 5 years now. Google has a problem executing, they're lulled by their one success.
    - HCIdivision17 14y ago
      I'm impressed because people have been trying to nail this problem for decades. Try convincing people that a few million automated half-ton canisters of metal going 60 miles an hour are safe. An early success will win investors or make a nice press release, but developing a rigorous, safe product of that complexity and risk is a long slog. It's got to be so well understood it's boring - then it's ready for massive public use.
    - ghshephard 14y ago
      If you live in the Bay Area you see the automated cars driving Google Employees to work all the time. I used to get an SMS any time somebody saw one (they are very distinctive) - but not as often, because people are starting to get more used to them. Though, they are still pretty cool to run across.
    - nostrademons 14y ago
      One success being Search, AdSense, GMail, Maps, Analytics, Chrome, or Android?
      - marshallp 14y ago
        Success as in what earns their profits.
      - 14y ago

rdl 14y ago

I wonder how much global warming gets prevented just through everyone adopting these practices for datacenters (either directly or by switching to cloud providers with an economic incentive to do so). Maybe a carbon tax wouldn't be so unreasonable, if it shifts more innovation like this. There's probably a "Google of Cement Production", agriculture (arguably this is Monsanto or ADM or Cargill, as much as they are reviled over IP, they are quite efficient), etc.

ars 14y ago
There already is an energy tax. You have to pay for energy. A carbon tax on top of that wouldn't effect efficiency.
- fiesycal 14y ago
  The argument is that the cost of extracting the energy and transforming it into a usable source does not match the cost it does to the environment once that energy is used. That's what the carbon tax is for. It's for the carbon (pollutants) you produce not for the energy you use. Hence why it's called a carbon tax and not an energy tax.
  - rdl 14y ago
    Exactly. By capturing externalities correctly you'd encourage use of inconveniently located less-polluting energy sources in some cases, in preference to easily transported (or conveniently located) more polluting fuels. (or, my favorite, easily transported, non polluting nuclear...)
  - ars 14y ago
    It's not so simple. Until the EROI of other fuels improves dramatically a carbon dioxide tax is just going to make every fuel more expensive, since non-carbon fuels need carbon fuels as input. Once the EROI goes up this isn't a problem. But until it does a carbon dioxide tax is pointless - it just makes everything more expensive. And once the EROI does go up people will switch to those energy sources without prompting (they will simply be cheaper), so again a carbon dioxide tax does nothing.

aphtab 14y ago

Might wanna read this one too: http://gigaom.com/cleantech/google-backs-iowa-wind-farm-has-put-close-to-1b-into-clean-power/ http://gigaom.com/cleantech/google-backs-iowa-wind-farm-has-...