Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Google going down?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Kackle, Thanks for that post, clears it up quite a bit. I cant wait to see how google over comes this one...
    Bike Forums.net

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by stanmxl
      I think you don't either.

      Google is not a publically traded company. That is its current market status.

      Do you still think he knows what he's talking about?
      Last I heard they had an IPO a few months ago... IPO means Initial Public Offering. Unless that fell through because of SEC violations on Google's part in the filing they would be publicly traded.

      If it didn't go through then the owners can stay in control as long as they don't need the capital that the IPO would bring. More power to them.
      Translations provided by Google.

      Wayne Luke
      The Rabid Badger - a vBulletin Cloud demonstration site.
      vBulletin 5 API - Full / Mobile
      Vote for your favorite feature requests and the bugs you want to see fixed.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by stanmxl
        I think you don't either.

        Google is not a publically traded company. That is its current market status.

        Do you still think he knows what he's talking about?
        Yes.
        Trent Gillespie Mod Theater Gillespie Photography

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Wayne Luke
          Last I heard they had an IPO a few months ago... IPO means Initial Public Offering. Unless that fell through because of SEC violations on Google's part in the filing they would be publicly traded.

          If it didn't go through then the owners can stay in control as long as they don't need the capital that the IPO would bring. More power to them.
          There's been talk about them having an IPO for a very, very, very long time, but it's never gone through.

          Else we'd all know Googles ticker by now, right?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by stanmxl
            There's been talk about them having an IPO for a very, very, very long time, but it's never gone through.

            Else we'd all know Googles ticker by now, right?
            Maybe you would. I could not care less about a company's ticker unless I own stock of theirs.
            Translations provided by Google.

            Wayne Luke
            The Rabid Badger - a vBulletin Cloud demonstration site.
            vBulletin 5 API - Full / Mobile
            Vote for your favorite feature requests and the bugs you want to see fixed.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Wayne Luke
              Maybe you would. I could not care less about a company's ticker unless I own stock of theirs.
              I'd care. Because I'd know it really is publically traded and I just don't make up facts without verifying.

              Comment


              • #37
                Google has not had an IPO

                Kackle, that page is more than a year and a half old. It could easily be outdated. You even said it:
                Originally posted by Kackle
                It's clear that four-byte docIDs were used at one time. It's also clear that increasing beyond four bytes is not trivial. Finally, there is no way they would use 8 bytes if they can use 5 bytes instead. Remember, this docID is used twice for every indexed word on every web page on the web. You want it as efficient as possible.


                As to the /. comment. I assure you that it wasn't directed at you.
                There is rarely anything posted on /. that is not definite and set in stone. Look at today's headlines:
                • Science: Holographic Keypads Float Into View
                • Red Hat Sues SCO, Sets Up Legal Fund
                • Slashdot T-Shirt Contest Winners!
                • iPhoto 2: The Missing Manual
                • frottle: Defeating the Wireless Hidden Node Problem
                • Interviews: Find Out About the Future of Science
                • 4Gb CF Card Announced
                • The Effect of Pirated CDs
                • Novell Buys Ximian
                • MSI's Home Theatre PC Reviewed
                • How's Your Cell Service?
                • New High-End HP Calculator?
                • AMD, Transmeta Edge Up In Market Share
                • X-Prize Overview: To The Edge Of Space, Cheap


                The HP Calc one is the only speculative article. There is very little definite fact compared to the other articles.

                Oh, and 10 TB is nothing. I've 1 TB of storage in my house. I read somewhere that Google has one person assigned to manage every 100TB of data.

                Mike

                Comment


                • #38
                  I didn't submit it to Slashdot. Someone else did without asking me first. I wanted Slashdot to ignore it, which is why I put that little GIF on it. I've already been slashdotted twice in the last year, and flamed by legions of slashdotting script kiddies. It's not much fun.

                  I dispute your presumption. Remember, Google uses massively parallel configurations for load balancing, and for redundancy and fault toleration, in at least nine different data centers around the world. Whatever bytes you use in the elemental design get multiplied many, many times throughout the entire architecture. It's very clear that Google's engineers are conscious of every wasted bit, and every wasted CPU cycle at the level of software design that we're discussing when referring to the nature of the docID, and the process of accessing the inverted indexes.

                  From: http://www.computer.org/micro/mi2003/m2022.pdf
                  "The Google Cluster Architecture: Web Search for a Planet" IEEE Micro, March-April, 2003, written by three Google engineers.

                  "The search process is challenging because of the large amount of data: The raw documents comprise several tens of terabytes of uncompressed data, and the inverted index resulting from this raw data is itself many terabytes of data."

                  Now multiply this many times -- heck, let's say 100 times. At that point, perhaps they have one person looking after every 100 terabytes. But you'd have to also multiply the space required for the docID in the inverted index 100 times.

                  In fact, since the activity in the inverted indexes accounts for most of the CPU load, my guess is that you'd need maybe 20 duplicate inverted indexes for every complete set of raw documents. So let's multiply it by 2000 times instead.

                  I'm guessing on the numbers, but my basic point remains -- they aren't going to waste bytes on the docID if they don't have to.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    An extra byte, in my opinion, wouldn't help for too long. I haven't done the numbers (I don't have my graphing calculator with me...but I could use the new HP one ), but I susepect that web growth is modeled by an exponential regression, not a linear regression. I would go for at least 2 bytes extra.

                    I don't have time to read the article, but I will later...and I'll do a bit of stats on my calculator tomorrow.

                    Mike

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      You don't need a calculator. An extra byte is 8 extra bits. Each bit doubles the capacity. This is too much extra capacity, but it's more efficient to add a full byte even if you need less than a byte, because the operating system works with bytes when it comes to input-output functions and memory access.

                      You don't need 256 times more numbers. I'd go for 3 bits out of the 8 by masking out the ones I'm not using. That gives me 8 times 4.2 billion, or 34 billion total docIDs before I run out of numbers. That should do it.

                      The other 5 bits can be used to categorize web pages or improve the algorithms some other way.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        That's almost like thinking it's alright to squeeze the date into 6 digits because you can fit that on a card...

                        I'm going to find some data and get to work tomorrow...

                        Comment

                        widgetinstance 262 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                        Working...
                        X